ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs. (i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17.08.2020 (Annex.P/8), order dated 25.01.2022 (Annex.P/10) and order dated 19.07.2023 (Annex.P/11) and direct the respondents competent authority to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak and allow him to perform the service of the said post till the date of superannuation. (ii) Any other relief or writ or direction or order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper looking the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the litigation.

2. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that one Tundi Lal Pardhi was the owner of the property. Bhola Ram Pardhi purchased the disputed land from its true owner by registered sale-deed dated 12.10.1993. Bhola Ram Pardhi gave the land in dispute to the petitioners without executing any document. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for grant of Patta of Abadi land and the Patta was granted to the petitioners in the year 2018. It is submitted that a complaint was made to the Commissioner Jabalpur on the ground that Patta of Abadi land was given to 10 persons who are operating their commercial activities in the shops. Accordingly, the Commissioner Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur by his letter dated 30.10.2023 directed the SDO (R), Waraseoni, District, Balaghat, to cancel the Patta of Abadi land granted to the ten persons. Accordingly, it is submitted that the SDO has registered a case No. 841/B-121/24-25 and has started the proceedings for cancellation of Patta and now the case is fixed for final orders. It is submitted that, since the Commissioner Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur has no jurisdiction to direct the SDO to cancel the Patta, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Jabalpur, Division Jabalpur on 30.10.2023 is bad in law and initiation of proceedings by SDO in compliance of the said order is also bad.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. During the course of arguments, it was admitted by counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are not having any deed of conveyance in their favour. It is submitted that petitioners are having a Patta of Abadi land, which was granted to them in the year 2018. It has also been admitted by the petitioners that the petitioners are running their commercial activities by constructing shops. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that before grant of Patta, the shops were already constructed.

5. Be that whatever it may be.

6. The petitioners are not having any document of title in their favour. If the contention of the petitioners that shops were already constructed, then necessarily the value of the said property which was allegedly given by Bhola Ram Pardhi to the petitioners was more than Rs.100/-, therefore, registered sale-deed was required.

7. Under these circumstances, this court is of considered opinion that, in absence of any registered sale-deed, the petitioners would not get any title. Furthermore, it is the case of the petitioners themselves that they themselves had moved an application for grant of Patta of Abadi land and they have been granted Patta in the year 2018. Abadi land has been defined under section 2 (a) of the MPLR Code, which reads as under :-

2(a) "abadi" means the area reserved from time to time in a village in a nonurban area for the residence of the inhabitants thereof or for purposes 14 ancillary thereto, and any other local equivalent of this expression such as "village site" or "gaonsthan" shall also be construed accordingly;

8. Therefore, it is clear that Abadi land can be utilized only for residential purposes and not for non residential purposes. Since the petitioners themselves had filed an application for grant of Patta for Abadi la